If the winning bid is real and the price is being
artificially raised by fake bidders then that sucks -
I would not be a happy camper if I won and found out
that had happened to me.


--- robin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> up to £4700 now. see if that was a fake bidding war
> wouldn't you fake 
> it up a bit more realistically?
> 
> having said that that's such ludicrous money to
> spend on a bit of vinyl 
> this has to be a set up.
> 
> robin...
> 
> 
> On 17 Mar 2005, at 17:01, Dave Parsons wrote:
> 
> > Sell has 0 feedback, fake 0 feedback bidders,
> lot's of multiple bids 
> > by the
> > same user in a row...  I doubt the guy even has
> the record(lets see the
> > label scan).  Plus I can't think of any Detroit
> 12" (or any Techno / 
> > House /
> > Electronica 12" for that matter) that has reached
> 4 figures...  yet.
> >
> > Hey, that's one rare disc that I don't have... 
> and If I did would be
> > keeping it under lock and key!
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Placid [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: 17 March 2005 16:48
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [email protected]
> > Subject: Re: (313) that clarence g on ebay
> >
> > what do you mean by that....
> >
> > Dave Parsons wrote:
> >
> >> That auction is one big fake...  don't even
> bother looking!
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Placid [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> Sent: 17 March 2005 16:03
> >> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> Cc: [email protected]
> >> Subject: Re: (313) that clarence g on ebay
> >>
> >> bubblemetropolis has appeared.. with 0 rating he
> could jus be having a
> >> laugh to see how high they will go...
> >>
> >> p
> >>
> >> Thomas D. Cox, Jr. wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> 4100 pounds right now. i think someone found a
> copy in a shop and
> >>> is trying to launder drug money. no techno
> record is worth $8000+.
> >>> someone is taking the piss.
> >>>
> >>> tom
> >>>
> >>>
>
________________________________________________________________
> >>> andythepooh.com
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> 
> 

Reply via email to